beta
Text
1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation as to this part of the decision made by a retrial is as follows: (a) the pertinent part of the judgment of the first instance is identical to that of the corresponding part, except for the following parts written by the court; and (b) the same is acceptable under Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The 4th to 19th of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be written by cutting the 4th of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows.
“A. The transfer or transfer of a worker of the relevant legal doctrine may be disadvantageously imposed on his/her worker in that he/she would result in the change of the type, content, place, etc. of his/her work to be provided. However, as a matter of principle, he/she belongs to the employer’s authority, and thus, he/she should have considerable discretion to the extent necessary for his/her work. Thus, barring any special circumstance, such as violating the Labor Standards Act or constituting an abuse of rights, such disposition cannot be deemed null and void. Whether the transfer or transfer, etc. belongs to the scope of legitimate personnel authority should be compared and compared to the necessity of his/her work, such as the transfer or transfer, etc. and determine whether the labor union to which the worker belongs (
If the disadvantage of life due to the change of occupation, etc. due to the necessity of business is remarkably beyond the degree of the worker should normally bear, this belongs to the scope of legitimate personnel rights, and thus does not constitute abuse of rights.
In the case of a transfer of occupation, etc., it can be said that it is a single factor to determine whether a legitimate personnel right has been exercised in good faith with the worker himself/herself, but it cannot be said that a transfer of occupation, etc. constitutes an abuse of rights.